Few Understand That Social Security Is Already Means-Tested

Computing the the primary insurance amount (PIA). The formula used to compute the PIA from average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) is weighted to provide a higher PIA-to-AIME ratio for workers with comparatively low earnings. The formula applies declining percentage conversion rates to three AIME brackets. For workers who reach age 62, become disabled, or die in 2012, the formula provides a PIA equal to the sum of

90 percent of the first $767 of AIME, plus
32 percent of the next $3,857 of AIME, plus
15 percent of AIME over $4,624.

The PIA is increased by cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) beginning with the first year of eligibility. The COLA for 2012 took effect in December 2011.

The dollar amounts defining the AIME brackets are referred to as bend points. These bend points are updated automatically each year in proportion to increases in the national average wage level. This automatic adjustment ensures that benefit levels for successive generations of eligible workers will keep up with rising earnings levels, thereby assuring consistent rates of earnings replacement from one generation of beneficiaries to the next.

Annual Statistical Supplement, 2012 - Social Security Program Description and Legislative History

Yes, there is means-testing for social security benefits, which favors low income workers, but that doesn't mean that very wealthy people need to get any SS benefits. Social Security will not survive for the next generation unless we reform it, and one way is to stop providing it for people who don't need it.

As usual, I am rightfully confused.  One point that is so counter-intuitive is: The social system should be made mercifully and considerately simple as one gets older.  But all these ss/medicare/tax systems are making things a lot more complex than necessary to ensure early death of seniors by brain explosion.

We pay taxes on our Social Security every year.  Who is to decide who are the people who "don't need it"?  Just because someone has savings doesn't mean they are wealthy.  Maybe a lot of the savings go to help others and if they didn't have social security to back it up. they would deplete most of any savings.  Once again, the savers would be punished for doing the  right thing and trying not to be a dole on the government.  In our example, we are saving taxpayers (i.e. the government) from having to shell out thousands of dollars to help someone because we are helping  them instead.   Many savers need their social security, imo. 

Does Warren Buffett or Bill Gates need SS?